Orwell's 1984 in 2017: Newspeak or NewsCorp?

Rupert Murdoch's Orwellian NewsCorp

On April 4th several New York City arts organizations provided their audiences with the opportunity to watch the film, Ninteen Eighty-Four, based on George Orwell's book by the same name. Orwell published the book in 1949 - just a few short years after the fall of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi regime. The significance of the April 4th date is that that is the date first inscribed in the diary of Winston Smith, the central character and protagonist in the book / film.

Orwell [born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903] was a journalist and novelist who covered the Spanish Civil War in 1936 - 1937, during which the Communists fought the Nationalists for control of Spain. In 1938 Orwell wrote the book Homage to Catalonia about the war, and one of the notable quotes penned in that book was,

"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

When World War II broke out, Orwell [who had tuberculosis] was declared "unfit for any kind of military service" by the British Medical Board. Nonetheless, Orwell spent two years [1941 - 1943] as a broadcaster for the BBC's Eastern Service. Around the time he left the BBC, Orwell began work on a book entitled Animal Farm which he finished and published around the end of the war in 1945. The book talked about how a democracy of pigs was eventually corrupted by those at the top, who fashioned the governance to serve themselves, while exploiting the other members of the farm. One of Orwell's notable quotes penned in that novel was,

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Between the end of the war through to the end of his life [died 1950], Orwell kept on writing - finishing and publishing his last novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four- in 1949. In the film 1984, Newspeak is the party language and is characterized by a diminishing vocabulary which is designed to limit thoughts of opposition to the party and leadership, in order to maximize party influence and control.

NewsCorp Newspeak: Rupert Murdoch's NY Post & Fox 'News'

I've been watching Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp and 21st Century Fox media outlets for about a year now.

I started tracking them because I found the NY Post coverage of the allegations [the investigation was closed in March 2017] surrounding Mayor de Blasio's fundraising - to be propagandistic. For nearly a year the NY Post appeared to publish out-of-context, one-sided, significant distortions of the events surrounding the Mayor. The unrelenting NY Post propagandistic accounts appeared to fall well outside of the guiding principles of American journalism.

Given Murdoch's prior history of election meddling around the globe [see Murdoch corruption or Fox propaganda], one might easily surmise that Murdoch's propagandist attacks on Mayor de Blasio are an attempt to discredit the Mayor in advance of the 2017 election. Thus, since April 2016, I started watching Fox News and their team of commentators - several of whom appear to be unabashed propagandists.

Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Janine Pirro top the list - but in Murdoch's media empire, these top performing masters of media distortion, are far from alone.

Fox & Hannity's Newspeak: Appears to Tell their Audience to Believe What they Say Now, & to Forget Everything they Said Previously

Fox 'News' Hannity is a good example of a Newspeaker, because he appears to conveniently forget or omit things that don't fit into many of his narratives, including things he himself has previously said.

Hannity appears to believe that he should,

"never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

In Orwell's 1984 novel / film the rulers teach the people to forget the past, so that the people will believe anything that is told to them. To help this forgetting process along, the rulers change the narratives or prior reports of people and nations in the past.

The simplest example of removing subjects' memories in the film - removing statements of truth so-to-speak - was getting the subjects to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. If the ruling class says it's 5, then it's five - not four.

On Fox 'News' Hannity we see some striking parallels of such flip flops on 'truths'. In 2010 Hannity was calling for hacker Julian Assange to be imprisoned. But in January 2017, conveniently forgot that Assange hacked and stole government information. In 2017 Hannity even provided a public platform for Assange, interviewing the allegedly treasonous hacker; and by some accounts, treating Assange who is wanted for alleged sex crimes in Sweden, with kid gloves.

What changed? Perhaps Rupert Murdoch's Fox News talking points on the Assange narrative, which in 2017 appears to be promoting the notion that Donald Trump did not collude with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election. The Fox propaganda network doesn't seem to want to wait for the law enforcement officials to complete their work, before pronouncing Trump innocent.

Is this a modern day Orwellian 1984, where we are asked to forget Fox 'News' and Hannity's prior narrative, and believe what they are telling us now?

Mega Multi-Millionaire Hannity Appears to be a War Promoter

I've been watching Hannity shows for about a half year now, and I find his hypocrisy nearly legendary. Hannity portrays himself as a working class guy, while he rakes in about $30 million per year and owns multiple multi-million dollar mansions / homes and flies around the country on private jets.

Oliver North and Sean Hannity founded a charity, Freedom Alliance [Concerts], for the families of veterans of the Iraq War - a war which Hannity and his Boss Murdoch promoted using the 'fake news' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction [WMD].

Murdoch's Fox 'News' and Hannity's ongoing rhetoric calling for a war in Iraq enhanced Fox ratings and revenue, appearing to benefit Hannity, O'Reilly and other members of the Murdoch propaganda network, while destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of others [I'm including the Iraqi civilians too].

Hannity's Freedom Concerts: A Self Promotion Venue?

Hannity has a Charity for Iraq Veterans' Children - some Believe it's Self Serving

According to Conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel and other reports, I began to get the impression that Hannity's charity is as much a funding source to promote and pay for Sean Hannity public relations efforts, as it is a vehicle to help the children of Iraq War veterans.

In a March 19, 2010 post, Schlussel reports that she received the following information from a contact at Fox.

"Hannity's Freedom Concerts [fund his] use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly [him around], a fleet of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs ... and several suites at really expensive hotels ..."

Schlussel goes on to question how much of the funds raised, actually go to the children of Iraq veterans.

More than Half the Proceeds go to the Programs

An April 2, 2010 Mother Jones report notes that the non-profit Charity Navigator downgraded the Freedom Alliance [concerts] to two stars following a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington[CREW]. The CREW complaint said that it was unclear how much money actually made it to veterans' children.

In a March 22, 2010 report by CNS News, a conservative site, reported Hannity's response to the above allegations as:

"The statement posted by the Freedom Alliance is 100% truthful and accurate. I have NOT taken a single penny from the Freedom Alliance or from concert sales EVER! I pay all the travel costs for my staff, family and me, and I have personally donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the FA and military charities."

In Charity Navigator's most recent rating dated March 1, 2017 for the fiscal year of 2015, the Freedom Alliance received a 78 rating and reports that about 57% of the charity proceeds go to the programs they deliver.

Orwell's message to us seems relevant to this conversation as in Homage to Catalonia, Orwell tells us that,

"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

We'll take a look into one of Murdoch's huge Australian tax breaks, one of Murdoch's fabulous Australian homes, Ted Koppel's claim that Murdoch's Fox 'News' Hannity is bad for America, how deregulation benefits the Murdochs versus the American working class, and how Murdoch's propaganda machine support for Trump - less than 100 days into the new Administration - already appears to be providing Murdoch and Fox 'News' with handsome returns.

Brexit: Betrayal of Britain by a Billionaire Press Lord?

Is Murdoch about to Reap a $2.5 Billion Brexit Profit & Tighten his Grip on Britain?

I stumbled across a news item over the weekend, that led me back down the dirty trail of billionaire media mogul and global propagandist, Keith Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch NYC Media - NY Post, Fox News, WSJ, WNYW TV & WWOR TV

I believe this is an important issue that is, or eventually will be, of great concern to our readers. The reason New Yorkers should be concerned is because City Keith Rupert Murdoch controls the following NYC media: Fox TV Network, two local NYC TV stations - WNYW Channel 5 and WWOR Channel 9 - the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post.

Hence Murdoch has a dominant share of local NYC media and oftentimes appears to use it propagandistically to pick politicians who will help him enhance his corporate profits - oftentimes at the expense of the public.

Murdoch also controls some other American media properties including the National Geographic and book publisher, Harper Collins - but for the purposes of this report, these media outlets are less material.

I began taking notice of Rupert Murdoch's manipulative media methods in April 2016 when his NY Post started relentlessly slamming Mayor de Blasio on what at the time appeared to be based purely allegations and innuendo. Murdoch's Fox News seemed to add to some of the media thrashing. In doing the first story where I recanted some of as Murdoch's propagandistic methods, I found all sorts of other information that indicated that Media Mogul Murdoch might possibly be more corrupt than many of the politicians skewered by his tabloid print and broadcast outlets.

Was Brexit Used to Replace Cameron to Renew Sky TV Bid?

Around this same time as the NY Post was hazing Mayor de Blasio, the British referendum on whether to stay or exit the European Union [aka Brexit] was coming to a head. I couldn't resist watching Murdoch's manipulative media operations swing into action to sway that vote - as I hypothesized at the time - that he was using the referendum to discredit and replace British Prime Minister David Cameron, so Murdoch could resume his aborted effort to acquire the rest of the British Sky TV satellite network that he didn't already own.

The British Sky TV merger was aborted in July 2011 because Murdoch's organization was caught illegally hacking thousands of people's phones in Britain, in order to publicize their private lives, in the interest of macabre headlines and gossipy broadcasts.

Cameron's Press Secretary, Coulson, a former Murdoch employee, was one of the people accused in the hacking scandal. And the office of the person appointed to oversee the Murdoch B Sky B merger, Jeremy Hunt, was found to have broken protocol by surreptitiously communicating with Murdoch's organization through an intermediary during the regulatory oversight hearings.

Murdoch periodically publicly asserts that his political press patronage is not related to all the goodies he appears to collect shortly after his candidates win. But quite frankly, having done quite a lot of research, I find that close to impossible to believe after sifting through a four decades long pattern of highly beneficial circumtances that ended in Murdoch's favor - click here to read our report on possible Murdoch corruption - featuring Newscorp, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, the NY Post and the Sun.

Murdoch, NOT A BRITISH CITIZEN, Controls Largest Concentration of Media in Britain

Keith Rupert Murdoch is NOT A BRITISH CITIZEN, and yet he controls two of Britain's largest daily newspapers - the [London] Times and the Sun; and two of its largest weekend papers - the Sunday Times and the Sun on Sunday. Murdoch's organization also holds a 39% share in Sky TV, which is Britain's largest pay satellite TV provider, and has substantial mobile phone and internet service shares of the British market.

Today, nearly a year after the whole Brexit drama began, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost the Brexit vote and his job. And less than six months after the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, has taken office; Murdoch's 21st Century Fox has come back to fetch the rest of its prey. Murdoch re-opened the bid for the rest of Sky Broadcasting in early December of 2016. And Murdoch's organization reportedly may reap a $2.5 billion gain versus pre-Brexit economics.

I see Murdoch's role in the Brexit vote and current bid to acquire the rest of Sky to be very much related. What follows is a timeline along with some commentary to provide insights into what appear to be possible motives and the driving force behind the Brexit referendum. I hope this will help readers become more aware of the bigger picture - a global media billionaire, invisibly directing and stage managing events on a national and international scale, to get what he wants, regardless of the price the public must pay for it. I know this sounds harsh, but that is exactly what Hitler did and everyone - even Hitler's supporters - paid dearly for it.

Murdoch appears to be using his media outlets as propaganda-for-profit money machines. And he appears to hide in plain sight, behind his branded media curtains, while manipulating a kaleidoscope of menacing politicians and pathetic public policies, in order to further enrich and empower himself.

The laws of physics state that energy and matter are never lost, only transformed, and for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. These are laws that cannot be rewritten by Mr. Murdoch.

During July Conventions Murdoch's Fox News Treated Candidates like Polar Opposites - see Original Data Inside

1. POSITIVES:

Fox News Webcast 10 Times More for Trump than Clinton

During the Republican and Democratic Conventions in July 2016 I logged the headlines posted on the Fox News website at the top of the page.The news analysis study period begins Monday July 18, 2016 and runs through Thursday July 28, 2016.

The graphic at right shows the three areas of the Fox News website that I used for the analysis including 1) the top left box, which includes a number of top headlines, 2) the video boxes along the right side bar and 3) the three columns of stories just below the top box.

The following data which I included below contains the headline tabulations and the assignment of them to categories - so that you can judge for yourself how representative the numbers I am presenting are of Murdoch's Fox News treatment of the two candidates.

Murdoch History of Meddling in Democratic Elections

Rupert Murdoch appears to have a decades-long history of meddling in the elections of English speaking democracies around the world. Back in the 1960's he always had a tag line which he made sure to include in his interviews which is that he wanted "diversity in the media".

At best this interview tagline of his is insincere, as he owns over 60% of Australia newspapers, which is considered a monopoly share in our country, and he has controlling interest in Australian satellite television [see Wikipedia.org for details].

Promoting Politically Favored & Punishing the Opposition?

In the 1970's / 1980's Rupert Murdoch reportedly helped Margaret Thatcher win the Prime Minister position three times in Britain. And in her last campaign, he reportedly savaged the opposition which was leading in the polls until the end.

An American political science professor has studied the last of her victorious campaigns and it's worth repeating the lessons of it.

According to Professor James P. Allan who is a political scientist at Wittenberg University in Dublin, Ohio, Opposition Leader Neil Kinnock noted in his resignation speech in April 1992 the following,

"I make, and I seek, no excuses, and I express no bitterness, when I say that the Conservative-supporting press has enabled the Tory Party to win yet again when the Conservative Party could not have secured victory for itself on the basis of its record, its programme or its character."

Professor Allan goes on to tell us,

"In both 1987 and 1992, the Labour Party again had to deal with an extremely hostile national press, which relentlessly attacked Labour and its Leaders often using dubious evidence and arithmetic to question Labour's tax and spending plans. McKie cites several studies which suggest that the press had an influence on the outcome of the 1992 election, accounting for what appeared to be a late swing to the Conservatives."

Or Hyping the Favoreds & 'Bludgeoning the Opposition"?

In the Australian election of 2013, Murdoch's media outlets reportedly bludgeoned the opposition. According to an August 27, 2013 report in Bloomberg,

"[Murdoch's organization in Sydney's Daily Telegraph has depicted] Labor leader Rudd ... as a bungling Nazi commandant, Kermit the Frog and a bank robber ... [and] whose front-page salvo on the first day of the campaign was "Kick This Mob Out." Murdoch's News Corp. is "taking a club to our government," Rudd said August 23 ... on at least 20 occasions he and his ministers have accused the company of bias in the 24 days since the September 7th poll was set."

"News Corp.'s "attacks these days are much more sledgehammer brutal and unscrupulous than before," said John Menadue, the nation's most senior civil servant from 1974 to 1976, who managed Murdoch's Sydney operations for the preceding seven years."

Fact or Fiction: Voldemort or VoldeMurdoch?

Murdoch's morphing of older, established, trusted media brands into propaganda outlets, was well depicted by J.K. Rowling in her Harry Potter books. In the Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix, she captured in part what I feel I've been witnessing this year - how an audience slowly begins to realize that the information they are being served is crap. In the Harry Potter book the young wizards of Hogwarts School of Magic slowly come to the realization that the Daily Prophet - a centuries old, trusted, news source - has become insidiously corrupted by Lord Voldemort.

How Critical was Rupert Murdoch in Making Trump the Republican Nominee & in Keeping Trump in Contention for the Presidency?

Rupert Murdoch had Apartment in Trump Tower for Years

Is Rupert Murdoch using his Media Outlets as Propaganda Machines to Sway the Underinformed to Vote for His - NOT Their Own - Interests?

Multi-billionaire, Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch lived in Trump Towers for two to three years according to www.GuestofaGuest.com. During that time Murdoch's then-wife, Wendi Deng, became good friends with Trump's daughter Ivanka. In 2008, Deng reportedly helped Ivanka and her husband reconcile by inviting them to Rupert's yacht - without either of them knowing the other would be there.

It appears Wendi and Ivanka remain friends as they've been seen conversing together at numerous events in 2016 including while reportedly vacationing in Croatia. Thus it should come as no surprise that Rupert Murdoch heavily backed Trump's bid for the Republican nomination, telling Republican government officials and voters that they would be "Mad not to support him [Trump]".

In the photo at right Rupert Murdoch and Donald J. Trump are shown at one of Trump's golf courses. Murdoch who is not a British citizen supported the Brexit vote, which American military generals have said weakens NATO's standing vis a vis periodically hostile foreign nations like Putin's Russia. We'll have more on what the Brexit vote means for average Brits, a bit further down in this story.

Globetrotting Murdoch has Controlling Interest in Fox, NY Post & WSJ and Appears to have Few Loyalties

Rupert Murdoch has controlling interest in Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post, Barron's and the National Geographic along with numerous television stations and smaller newspapers.

Rupert Murdoch appears to have a long history of swaying voters to vote against their own interests by using propagandist techniques to manipulate them. Propagandist techniques include using half truths, hyping stories either favorable or unfavorable, and creating chaos while badgering other members of the press, politicians and the public into accepting well scripted narratives.

It appears the 2016 U.S. presidential election is no different, and quite possibly the Murdoch Manipulative Media Machine is on steroids this year.

Murdoch Appears to Use Media Outlets as Propaganda Machines by Controlling the Narrative in Britain and the U.S.

We've documented prior occurrences in Britain where Murdoch appears to use his media outlets to sway his audiences to vote for the billionaire media mogul's interests, by convincing his audiences that they are voting for their own.

In the graphic at right, Murdoch's Sun, the largest newspaper in Britain, publicly beats its Tarzan-like chest telling the British public that it was them - Murdoch's newspapers - that won the election for Thatcher. That would seem to confirm that Murdoch runs a political propaganda machine and that his audience should be wary of trusting Murdoch media outlets.

Murdoch's 'Media Coup d' Etat' in 2000 U.S. Presidential Election

During the 2000 presidential election the rest of the American press remained silent, as Murdoch's NY Post and Fox News changed the presidential election results narrative and headlines, by leveraging the chaos in Florida to overturn the electoral college vote outcome in the middle of the night. Sadly, the rest of the American media dumbfoundedly followed. To use an expression Fox commentator Newt Gingrich's spoke this year, it appeared to be a media coup d'etat.

In congressional testimony in 2001, Fox News Chief Roger Ailes apologized for Fox News calling Bush the victor in the presidential election in November of 2000. But while Ailes apologized, can one doubt that he knew full well that his news treatment of election results made a significant difference in the outcome? And did he know that his apology to the Congressional Committee wouldn't make any difference at all? Adolph Hitler said something to the effect that in war [or elections], it doesn't matter if you lie - only that you win - because if you win, then how much you lied won't matter.

Have Hitler & Goebbels, the Earliest & Most Successful Practicioners of Modern Propaganda, been Eclipsed by Rupert Murdoch's use of the Dark Arts?

Adolph Hitler is the father of modern media propaganda. Hitler and Goebbels used propaganda to convince the German people of many things that just plainly were not true. They did so by telling half truths, distorting events by sensationalizing allegations, and hyping innuendo against their opposition. Hitler and Goebbels also downplayed, distorted or distracted the public from their own failings, negatives and misdeeds.

To manipulate the public Hitler and Goebbels created their propaganda using half truths which they mixed in some factually correct stories, so that the distortions of the truth and outright lies wouldn't be so easily detected. Ultimately Hitler and Goebbels played upon the German people's prejudices and roused their emotions to stir them to do horrible things. This is the nature of propaganda, as by arousing emotions, while creating chaos and confusion, propagandists are able to get people to make decisions based on half truths and emotion - instead of making intelligent decisions based on a full gathering of all of the facts, and a thoughtful evaluation of them based on human REASON - AND FULL DISCLOSURE. In civilized societies we call this the truth.

I know discussions of Hitler tend to be unpleasant given the atrocities he committed. But given current day events, it is imperative that people understand how Hitler INSIDIOUSLY came to power, before he took the world into a war that cost 70 - 80 million people their lives. As the 20th century writer George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember [learn from] the past, are condemned [or doomed?] to repeat it"".

Murdoch Seems to use Media Outlets as Propaganda Machines for his Own Benefit

Murdoch reportedly called off Fox commentator Megyn Kelly, after she took Trump to task in one of the Republican primary debates. Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly is apparently a friend of Trump's [see photo at right] who has also provided Trump with an 'open mike' providing Trump with virtually unlimited access for near hour long infomercials, while unleashing a near incessant barrage of attacks on his opponent.

Roger Ailes, who stepped down as the Fox News Chief following multiple allegations of his sexual misconduct, has reportedly taken a role in an advisory capacity in the Trump campaign. Fox commentator Sean Hannity has been stridently advocating for the Trump campaign for over a year. Hannity is rumored to be positioning himself for a spot with a Trump Administration - should Trump win the presidency.

Record-Breaking, Unrecorded Campaign Contributions by Murdoch

Murdoch isn't required to report his payment-in-kind infomercial-like coverage of candidates he favors, nor provide fair access to Trump competitors [because the Fair Use Doctrine was repealed under what may have been Murdoch influence - click link above to see a story we did looking into that]. Nor is Murdoch limited in the free attack coverage he can provide for the Trump Campaign against their opponents - because Murdoch is able to use the First Amendment loophole to make what appear to be record-breaking, unrecorded campaign, advertising contributions. It used to be called PROPAGANDA.

Has Rupert Murdoch's Organization been Trading Propaganda Services To Politicians in Exchange for Government Favors?

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, Murdoch's NY Post and even Murdoch's Wall Street Journal - appear to be used as a portfolio of propaganda publicity outlets to support Murdoch-favored politicians and Murdoch-favored public policies.

In this report we'll explore the possibility that Keith Rupert Murdoch's manipulative media machine is corrupting the public dialogue by disinforming and creating chaos in voters' minds, so that he can punish candidates by publicizing them out of office or publicity promote candidates into office. The photo at right shows a 1983 meeting between President Ronald Reagan and media mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch.

Decades of historical and recent coincidences, on three continents, and numerous administrations provide an entire body of circumstantial evidence that suggests Murdoch's organization has been methodically conducting behind-the-scenes deals with government officials to change media laws and regulations - affecting Murdoch's organization and the media industry - in Murdoch's favor.

In an October 16, 2006 story in the New Yorker, journalist and former Murdoch employee John Cassidy tells us,

"When I suggested to Murdoch that many people believe that his business interests dictate his politics, he reacted angrily. "Go ask Ed Koch if I ever asked him for anything," he said. "Go ask Margaret Thatcher. Go ask Tony Blair. Ask anyone if I ever asked for anything."

"Koch told me that Murdoch did once ask for something: during a newspaper strike in 1978, he requested, through an intermediary, that the Post's delivery trucks be allowed to use the city's parkways. Koch said yes. (He offered the city's other newspapers similar access.) The Thatcher government provided Murdoch with crucial police support when he fired hundreds of print-union workers, in 1986, and Blair relaxed the Labour Party's policy on media ownership."

Cassidy's listing of Murdoch favors from government officials appears to have only been the tip of the iceberg.

Is Murdoch Pulling Strings to Rewrite American Media Laws?

There have been a whole host of changes to American media laws since Rupert Murdoch arrived on our shores in the late 1970's.

The laws and regulations governing media that have been altered include: 1) media ownership by foreigners, 2) limits on local television stations ownership, 3) ownership of multiple media outlets in the same market [aka duopolies], and 4) media mergers and acquisitions. While I was generally unable to establish a legally verifiable quid pro quo, I did find an incredible number of what could only be described as 'interesting coincidences'. So interesting as to lead me to believe they might not be coincidences at all, including a recent series of events that appear to illustrate the theory that Keith Rupert Murdoch has played a highly influential role in making those changes.

In an April 27, 2012 story by ABC News, I found this report about Murdoch and his organization's political donations,

"Lately, a particular fundraising focus for Murdoch's American arm has been the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan. The company has directed $35,500 to Upton's leadership committee, including a $2,500 check from Murdoch himself."

Less than a year earlier, on May 31, 2011 the EnergyCommerce.House.gov website reported that,

""Further research has revealed that the political-editorial and personal-attack rules also remain intact despite the FCC's decision to repeal them. The media marketplace is more diverse and competitive today than it was ten years ago ... " [Editor's Note: This statement is not true - see facts a bit further below].

Murdoch's Fox News was tracking these events, and reported in a June 8, 2011 story headlined FCC Agrees to take "Fairness Doctrine off the Books",

""I [FCC's Genachowski] fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations," ... Genachowski wrote to Rep. Fred. Upton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce."

"At the time [when the rules were instated in 1949], only 2,881 radio stations existed, compared with roughly 14,000 today."

FCC Chairman Genachowski failed to mention that while the number of stations has proliferated, the ownership of them has not. According to a Business Insider report [info source was FrugalDad.com - a higher education funding website] and also published in Wikipedia.org - the media outlets mentioned above are now owned by six corporations, down from 50 in 1983.

In the graphic at right is a Murdoch's tabloid NY Post roasting the Clintons about Quid Pro Quo. I superimposed Murdoch's face over the Clintons as it appears the pot may be calling the kettle black.

You Decide - Is Billionaire Media Mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch Guilty of Quid Pro Quo Corruption or are these an Amazing Series of Lucky Coincidences?

Read on to decide for yourself whether you think that billionaire media mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch and his organization, are guilty of many of the same sorts of quid pro quo malfeasance of which they so easily and frequently accuse politicians.

NYC Rolls on After Small Bomb Explodes

Who are the Real Terrorists?

Saturday evening, September 17th, at around 8.30 pm a bomb went off in a dumpster near 131 West 23rd Street [just off 6th Avenue] in Chelsea. While a number of people were injured by the debris [29 in total], thankfully nobody was killed, and all 29 of the people impacted have been released. The photo at right shows the scene were a small bomb exploded on Saturday evening in the Chelsea section of Manhattan.

NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo was quick to inform the public that the bombing was a terrorist act, but that it did not appear to be linked to international terrorism. Today, just three days later, it appears the bomber may have been influenced by a trip taken abroad.

At the time of Cuomo's announcement, he appeared to be continuing what seems like an ongoing effort to upstage the Mayor, by being the first to speak to the press and by sensationalizing the incident using words like terrorist [headline grabbing].

The Mayor was far more circumspect when he spoke, telling us only that based on the evidence gathered at the time, the act appeared to be intentional. The Mayor ended his remarks with that terse statement - telling us he would have more to say pending the receipt of additional information. NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill exercised the same caution in describing the event as the Mayor.

Is Murdoch's Media Org Hyping the Bombing for Ratings & Newspaper Sales Like They Appeared to do with the Iraq War?

Not surprisingly, Keith Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, NY Post and Fox News noted / lauded or applauded the Governor for helping them in what appeared to be their ongoing efforts to sensationalize the terrible act.

Was their goal in hyping the bomb to sell more newspapers and increase their TV ratings? At first blush that's hard to believe - until you do the math.

In 2002 - 2003, Murdoch in tandem with his global media organization, strongly advocated on three continents [U.S., Britain and Australia] to start the War in Iraq. Ultimately, I believe the war increased Fox cable TV and Fox News ratings, which are worth billions of dollars annually. We'll have more on this a bit later in the story.

Do Bombers Seek Fame & Does Murdoch's Media Machine Provide Them with it?

Is Instant Fame a Bomber's Motivation? It seems plausible that part of the motivation of a bomber might be to make the headlines / be shown on TV / become famous, even if only for what artist Andy Warhol described as one's 15 minutes of fame. See NY Post graphic to your right, where the now famous bomber made the NY Post front page while lying in bed. Thank you Mr. Murdoch and your NY Post?

Achieving Goals By Fear Mongering? Rupert Murdoch's propaganda-oriented 'news' outlets may in fact be part of the problem - not part of the solution. Murdoch's organization appears hell bent on hyping the bombing event into an international terrorist attack, which one may surmise that they can then use to rekindle fears based on 15 year old memories, to shape the national security narrative leading up to the general election.

At a time when the whole world was in turmoil FDR told America,

"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

How times have changed.

It seems Keith Rupert Murdoch's organization is saying something just the opposite, like,

"Be afraid. Be very afraid."

Never mind that nobody died in this incident or even reportedly sustained any serious injuries. And based on what is known, and what I saw, there appears to be very little SUBSTANTIAL property damage. But professional propagandists never let the facts get in the way of the story they want to tell, the perspective they want to sell, so this was an event I used to watch and learn from a media organization controlled by a man believed by many, to be the world's reigning propagandist.

People need to pay more attention to who they're going to listen to, to provide them with information and context about the world in which we live. The information sources they choose inevitably influence their view of the world, who they choose to represent them, what public policies they want pursued and how they go about conducting their lives.

The graphic at right is a quote from author of the book entitled 1984 - George Orwell - in his book Homage to Catalonia published in 1938. In it he said,

"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

Pay Attention to the Changing Murdoch Media Narrative

Can the Real Terrorists be Found in Murdoch's Fear Mongering Media Empire?

Given that folks were out and about on Sunday, less than a day after the explosion, I began pondering whether it's media outlets like those owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch that are responsible for terrorizing the citizens of New York - and the nation - by continually repeating fear-inspired storylines / narratives?

It seemed the bomber had already failed to terrorize us in New York City, where the bomb exploded, given the fact that so many of us were out and about only hours later. In the photo at right are marchers in the Mexican Day Parade.

But Murdoch's manipulative media machine looks like it went into overdrive by broadcasting, webcasting and printing fear-inspired stories. Thus,perhaps the bomber may yet succeed in terrorizing us, with the help of Murdoch's media fear mongering machine.

Since Taxpayer Funds Most Production Costs of War / Show = Even Higher Profits

The Iraq War in 2003 was like fresh new free money, because Murdoch's organization could sell pricey TV ads for increased news ratings, while the bulk of the costs of staging the 'news programming' aka the Iraq War, was provided free to Murdoch's organization, compliments of the American, British and Australian taxpayers.

Based on the recent financial performance of Murdoch's organizations, his flailing media outlets appear to be in need of this sort of low cost [to Murdoch's media empire], high ratings programming.

Trillion(s) Spent on Iraq War Because of Phony, Media-Hyped, 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' Threat

In 2002 - 2003 Murdoch's organization appeared to use this same sort of hyping and sensationalizing of Sadam's 'weapons of mass destruction' to monger fear in America, Britain and Australia so the nations would go to war against Iraq.

Only later did we find out that there weren't, in fact, any weapons of mass destruction and that it was all media and political hype used to get us into the war. Once embroiled in the war, it cost well over a TRILLION DOLLARS, and by some accounts - we're still not completely out. In the graphic at right are just a few of the strident headlines published in Murdoch media.

Those Who do Not Learn from History are Doomed to Repeat it

In researching propaganda, I couldn't help but encounter propagandist works and statements made by propagandists Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. I recall as a youngster wondering how Hitler came to have so, so much power. Only now do I understand, as it appears Hitler accumulated his power insidiously, by conducting mass marketing campaigns of deception, disguised and packaged in with information, facts and news.

Does Fox Disinform - So Murdoch can Decide?

Fox viewers have been found not only to be less informed, but actually disinformed, on subjects ranging from healthcare, to science, to international affairs.

Media Matters informs us that studies to this effect have been conducted by Kaiser Health, Ohio State University researchers, Program on International Policy Attitudes, Stanford University and the National Science Foundation, University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, Farleigh Dickinson University and an NBC / Wall Street Journal poll before Murdoch acquired the Wall Street Journal.

As you can see in the graphic at right, a poll which was included in a documentary entitled OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, shows that Fox viewers tended to be more ill-informed than their PBS media peers.

You can click into the graphic which will take you to the video, but we reference and link to it again later in this story where we highlight a piece in the video that proves the point and is funny in a twisted Murdochian way.

Click here to view a prior piece we did on what appears to be Rupert Murdoch's assault on democracy which takes you deeper into what appears to be a long history of the billionaire media mogul's influence on electoral outcomes.

In June of 2016 Murdoch's media organization seemed to provide its readers / voters the same sort of bad advice with their advocacy in favor of Brexit or exiting the European Union. We'll have a bit more on this later.

Who's Behind NY Post's Media Hazing of Mayor?

Will Billionaire Rupert Murdoch Profit from NY POST's Attack Stories?

The NY Post's incredible barrage of attack stories on NYC Mayor de Blasio this past month led us to believe that something was amiss.

Is the NY Post Disinforming the Public?

After a month of a barrage of negative attack (ads?) stories regarding the Mayor's campaign funding, someone reading the NY Post might come away believing that Mayor de Blasio had already been convicted of numerous counts of breaking the law. As you will see later in this story, this would not be the first time the Murdoch organization's audience was not uninformed - but rather disinformed.

That said, if they read a newspaper that generally conforms to the professional standards of American journalism, like the New York Times, they would know that,

"It is not clear how direct a role, if any, the mayor played in some of these matters." - NYT April 29, 2016

Infomercials Presented as News?

Given that some of what Murdoch's organization [includes NY Post, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and hundred(s) more properties] publishes and broadcasts appears to make significant departures from the American professional standards of journalism - one has to wonder if Murdoch's organization hasn't found a way to skirt campaign finance laws - as some of their 'news reporting' looks more like long-winded political infomercials.

Just Because They Say it's So, Doesn't Mean it's So

The NYS Board of Elections says,

"Independent Expenditures Do Not Include Expenditures in Connection with... A written news story, commentary, or editorial or a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, cable or satellite, unless such publication or facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee or candidate ..."

Has Murdoch's organization found a way to skirt campaign finance laws by making huge, undisclosed, payment-in-kind, independent media expenditures to support or attack political candidates and push an issue agenda by running infomercials as news stories?

Does this practice enable the Murdoch organization to become the STRING PULLER, who makes their candidates POLITICAL PUPPETS?

Rupert's NY Post Goes After Mayor like Rabid Dog

There were 80 stories published about the Mayor by Billionaire Media Mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch's NY Post in the first 24 days of April.

That's more than three stories per day - and not a single one was positive [a few were neutral]. The stories were authored by 20 reporters, some of whom shared the bylines. This is the equivalent of having the entire editorial staff of a medium-sized daily newspaper, working full time on publishing stories about just one government official.

I'm pretty sure that the Washington Post didn't dedicate this kind of resource to covering the Nixon Watergate scandal in the early 1970's. It seems like overkill, which is generally indicative that something is not right.

I say not right because it has been my experience that this kind of overzealous attack oftentimes reflects more upon the prosecutor than the prosecuted.

Abusive, Power-Hungry Media Moguls in Film - 1941 & 1997

What I found while working on this story had some parallels to the 1997 James Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies. In the movie, Eliot Carver is the Media Mogul, and he uses his presses and TV stations to hype a war between China and Britain. In 2002 the NYT did a piece which they entitled 'Mr. Murdoch's War' which was about Murdoch's urging the U.S. and Britain to go to war in Iraq, which we'll have more about later in this story.

During my research a character profile of Billionaire Murdoch began to emerge that was something right out of the film Citizen Kane, who was portrayed by Orson Welles in 1941. It's interesting to note that 1941 was the same year that the FCC capped TV media ownership by a single person / entity at 35%. And this FCC ownership limit was overturned, some say because of Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, and this will also be covered in more detail a bit later in this story.

The image to your right shows a page out of The Guardian, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, about the culture of Billionaire Media Mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch's organization.

Consider The Source

I. Criminal Acts: Murdoch Declared 'Unfit'

In 2012, only four short years ago, Billionaire Media Mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch was declared "Not a Fit Person" to lead his company by a British public official who led a commission that investigated the criminal operations conducted by people working for Billionaire Mogul Murdoch's media empire.

Murdoch's Hires Convicted of Bribery & Hacking Crimes (911 Victims)

For alleged crimes committed over the course of years within roughly the first decade of the 21st century, British authorities arrested and / or convicted dozens of people working for Murdoch's organization.

The crimes they were convicted of, alleged to have committed, or were arrested for - included bribing government and law enforcement officials, and hacking the phones of relatives of murder victims, the relatives of soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq, relatives of the victims of the London terrorist attacks, relatives of 911 victims, a four year old's cystic fibrosis medical records, and the mother of a slain daughter.

It appears Murdoch's organization did this to build viewership for his media outlets. Investigation into the 911 allegations were dropped by the FBI, but reportedly to the dissatisfaction and without the consent of some of those believed to be affected.

II. Coincidental Events or Propaganda For Profit?

NewsCorp Influence on Elections Followed by Favorable Gov't Rulings

We found three examples of Murdoch's news organization appearing to meddle with electoral outcomes by using their media assets as a propaganda machine, rather than as a news organization.

1. Fox News Role in 2000 Election of Bush

Followed by Bush FCC Expanding TV Ownership Limits

In 2000, Fox News declared Bush the victor of the election around 2.30 am, the morning after the election. Later than morning, in New York City the media capital of the nation, an Election Extra morning edition of the NY Post hit the newsstands announcing Bush's victory in a definitive manner. This came after all four [including Fox] of the American TV networks had already declared Al Gore the probable winner on election night. A confused NYT headline appeared to follow Murdoch's Fox News and NY Post definitive announcement by declaring that Bush 'appeared to defeat Gore'.

In less than three years the Bush Administration's FCC rolled back limits on ownership of TV station coverage in the nation, which enabled Billionaire Murdoch's Fox Television to expand its TV station coverage, thus giving Murdoch's Fox network a competitive advantage. Coincidence, or does the NY Post headline below apply to Murdoch here?

2. Murdoch's Support of Cameron for British Prime Minister

Followed by Cameron's Gov't Presiding over Regulatory Approval Process of Murdoch Deal

In 2009 as the Murdoch's were reported to be contemplating making a bid for the shares of British Sky Broadcasting [aka B Sky B] that they didn't already own, David Cameron was contemplating a run for Britain's Prime Minister.

That summer a Cameron aide was reported to have spent five days visiting the Murdoch's news organization in New York. Following the visit, Murdoch began supporting Cameron's bid for Prime Minister [he won]. Roughly around the same time, Murdoch made a bid for B Sky B. The completion of the B Sky B acquisition was within a month of regulatory approval, but halted, because of 'near industrial scale' phone hacking scandal and news reports of bribes which were alleged to implicate Murdoch's news organization in 2011.

3. NY Post Endorses Cuomo for Governor

Followed by Murdoch NO-BID Deal Negotiations with New York State

In 2010 Murdoch's NY Post endorsed Andrew Cuomo's bid for NYS governor. In August 2011, a Murdoch company was about to be awarded a no-bid contract to track students' performance by the State of New York.

But the deal was halted because of the serious criminal charges of phone hacking by Murdoch's organization, as well as allegations regarding his organization's bribes of police and government officals.

This third coincidence leads us to consider the possibility of a possible NYC or NYS profit motive behind Murdoch's NY Post's barrage of attack stories on Mayor de Blasio.

III. Murdoch Organization & Disinformation

Murdoch's NY Post Hazing of Mayor: Propaganda for Profit?

In the story that follows you'll find some additional source material, including a book about Murdoch sold by British Amazon.com.

We make comparisons of Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst who reportedly told one of his newsmen - "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Some believe Murdoch's role in stridently urging the English-speaking world into the Iraq war was for ratings.

We provide accounts of details about the criminal acts done by hires for Murdoch's organization.

We provide the names of the seven independent organizations which conducted studies showing that frequent viewers of Fox News appear to be disinformed.

And lastly, we conclude with a cursory look - because it's mostly allegations and innuendo - at the NY Post incessant barrage of attack stories of Mayor de Blasio.

Fox News has used the slogan, 'We Report. You Decide.' But after doing the research for this story I wondered if the slogan in the headline above, 'We Decide by Disinforming You.' might be a better fit.

As mentioned above, seven studies, by independent and respected institutions, found that frequent viewers of Fox News are more likely to be disinformedabout key issues of the day than other segments of the public. We'll have more on this later.

TV, Newspaper & PC Smoke Screens?

Is Billionaire Media Mogul Keith Rupert Murdoch using propaganda to enhance his organization's profit - OR is this all just an unusual series of coincidences?

You can judge for yourself whether you think Murdoch is running his media empire as a credible, contextual, balanced news reporting organization - OR - as an organization with a history of connections to criminal acts, and a propaganda-for-profit machine running near full capacity to topple the NYC Mayor.

Is Murdoch's Org Skirting Campaign Finance Laws?

At the end of this report we question whether the Murdoch organization is passing off what appears to be its frequent, one-sided, unbalanced, propaganda-like reports - or what some might call advocacy or attack infomercials - as news reports to skirt campaign finance laws.

On the Campaign Trail & 'Feeling the Bern'

Sanders Introduces Democratic Socialism to the American People

If nothing else, this has been an interesting presidential election cycle. It's not 'reality TV', its televised reality.

Making America Great ... again?

The Republicans attracted most of the attention early on, thanks mostly to Donald J. Trump's shock jock presidential candidacy. A candidacy that turned presidential debates about public policy into name calling, discussions of poll numbers & penis size, and relentless barrages of vituperative insults.

The Donald has, in his campaign, essentially told us to forgeddabout the ballooning government deficit, a dated and at times crumbling infrastructure, fixing our public education system, helping the shrinking middle class and addressing global climate change.

The Donald has distracted us from an intelligent discussion about these 'loser' subjects, and told us that he's going to rip 12 million people [the equivalent of about 5% of the nation's population] away from their families by deporting them, punishing women for getting abortions, and erecting a wall along the border with Mexico which he tells us the Mexicans are going to pay for.

Does Trump really think this is how to 'make America great ... again'?

Trump Candidacy Increases Ratings Which Translates to Profits

Trump may not make America great again, but he's been good for corporate-owned, network television ratings. The Hollywood Reporter quotes CBS Chairman, Leslie Moonves telling a Morgan Stanley conference in San Francisco on February 29th, 2016 that,

"The money's rolling in and this is fun ... this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."

While Sanders Delivers Substance & Expands Public Debate

So while Donald Trump has been filling the pockets of corporate-owned mass media, Bernie Sanders - the man with the real story - has largely been ignored. Ignored by the mass media, but embraced by the social media and a signficant and growing segment of the American populace. In fact Sanders, during the past week of campaigning in New York, attracted crowds of tens of thousands, while the other candidates on both sides of the ticket did not.

This Section is Dedicated to Preserving One Man One Vote Democracies by Exposing What Appears to be Murdoch's Life's Work in Propaganda

In the Spring of 2016, while watching the Bernie Sanders campaign unfold, I noticed that the 'mainstream media' was showing what seemed to be tangible bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. This prompted my first story about the Bernie Sanders campaign & phenomenon, and made me aware of how the mainstream media appeared to treat him unfairly.

After the New York Primary, I noticed a relentless onslaught of attacks by Rupert Murdoch's NY Post on Mayor de Blasio. The attacks were based on allegations and innuendo, and sometimes included as many as five attack stories per day. Their relentless attacks based on allegations and innuendo outraged my sense of decency and fair play, so I began a study of the NY Post reporting bias which resulted in the second story of this series.

While doing the de Blasio / NY Post story, I couldn't help but notice a wide ranging pattern of what appeared to be a rampant abuse of First Amendment power by Keith Rupert Murdoch and his organization, including breaking laws, invading people's privacy, and bribing public officials. While these activities were uncovered in Britain, it's not a stretch to think that given the same man, Murdoch, is controlling the Newscorp & 21st Century Fox global media empire, that these same sorts of nefarious activities might be going on here as well. In fact, people responsible for management oversight of the tainted operations were subsequently given high ranking positions in this country.

As the Republican and Democratic Conventions of 2016 approached, I decided that the time period surrounding the political party conventions, up through the general election in November, would provide me with a good case study period to evaluate whether and how Murdoch's Fox News, NY Post and other assorted media properties, including the Wall Street Journal and the National Geographic, might be used as propaganda outlets.

In doing the context research, I found America's and Britain's media laws had been rewritten and loosened over time. In numerous cases I noticed that Keith Rupert Murdoch, all too often appeared to be in close proximity to the politicians changing those laws - almost always having supported them with his media properties - and at least in one case - even making personally direct donations to their campaigns.

I dug a bit further and found that there are few 'real' media laws of the books in Australia, where Murdoch is no longer a citizen. In spite of his status as a foreigner he reportedly owns 64% of that nation's daily newspapers and has a controlling interest in the nation's satellite TV system. I did some cursory research and it's not a stretch to think that Murdoch may have gotten his start influencing the re-writing of a nation's media laws there.

I also found what appeared to be a striking pattern of Murdoch manipulations and moves that seemed to come straight out of the political and propaganda playbook written by two of the earliest, most successful, and most evil practitioners of modern mass market propaganda - Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels.

Hitler and Goebbels came to my attention because I found that I really could not even begin to understand modern propagandist techniques without studying Hitler and Goebbels in Germany in the 1930's. Hitler's skillful use of propaganda appears to have hastened his ascent to power, and enabled him to keep his grip on it. These two men are the fathers of modern propaganda, and it appears that Keith Rupert Murdoch has adopted and updated their propagandist techniques to serve his own interests.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So please read on.